:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Conference Call every Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning; at: 8:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Our Conference Call number is: (857) 232-0158
Conference Code: 110045

While on the Conference Call:
To mute your phone: press: 4*
To raise you hand for a question or comment: press: 5*

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

In conjunction with our Success Network
We announced our participation in the
Self Made Man Contest
on our Facebook and Twitter pages.

What is the new Self Made Man platform?
It’s kinda like Netflix, but better.
The content and platform will help you change your life, and the world…

It launches: February 20th
And, to celebrate,
they’re giving away over
$35,000 in cash and prizes!

Click here to
Enter Now!!!

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by moving your cursor to the upper right corner of the announcement's green background and clicking the “X”.

Authority to Jail

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Posts: 3
Joined: Wednesday February 10th, 2010 10:47 pm MST

Authority to Jail

Postby TheGreenGod » Tuesday March 16th, 2010 2:18 am MDT

Team Law,
First, thank you for providing many of your materials for free (including answers to questions posted on this forum). I have learned enough to convince me that Team Law is worth supporting, so if you are unable to answer my questions here I will ask again once I become a beneficiary.

I hope I am correct in my understanding that a man who lends consciousness to the corporation sole is not the Corporation Sole (hereafter "CS"). If that is so, I am curious how the man can be punished (jailed) for actions taken while lending capacity to the CS, as in the case of a traffic violation that leads to an arrest (assuming the car is owned, registered and operated by a licensed CS).

I have heard it asserted that most courts are in fact private corporations operating for profit. I have heard this said of most agencies that are commonly assumed to be government. If this is true, how is it lawful for the CORP Court to assert any jurisdiction over a flesh and blood man unless a contract exists between the parties? I just finished reading another post where you described a family court as being a court of equity, and once petitioned the court gains jurisdiction and must be obeyed. Where does this authority to adjudicate come from unless both parties in the suit consent to the 3rd party intervention?

Is an oath of office also an offer to contract?

Thank you.

User avatar
Posts: 110
Joined: Thursday February 5th, 2009 4:45 pm MST

Re: Authority to Jail

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Tuesday March 16th, 2010 4:26 pm MDT

Most individuals who lend consciousness and physical capacity to Social Security Administration created trusts believe that the TIN or SSN that identifies the taxpayer (trust) is their number. When they go to court they argue the case as if they are the one being accused of commiting the offense. In ignorance, these people create a general partnership with the trust. As a result, they are held accountable for the trust's actions as if they were their own. The general partnership is the contract you mentioned that would be necessary to bind the individual to the trust's actions. An individual can also be held accountable for the trust's actions when it is used to commit fraud.

The courts also operate on a set of presumptions. If I remember correctly you can find those presumptions in the code applicable the specific court in question. For example, most courts presume jurisdiction over the parties brought before the court unless they give judicial notice challenging jurisdiction. Such a challenge is usually done with a Notice of Foreign Law. You can read an example of one in the WARN newsletter, volume 1 issue 1. However, one must know how and when to properly use such a notice. Therefore, it is necessary to learn the law and how to properly apply it. In the WARN example, an action is not being brought against a SSA created trust; rather, it is being brought against a sovereign individual not subject to Corp. U.S. jurisdiction. If the action was brought against an SSA created trust then the Notice of Foreign Law would not be applicable due to the fact that the trust is subject to the Corp. court's jurisdiction.

Posts: 3
Joined: Wednesday February 10th, 2010 10:47 pm MST

Re: Authority to Jail

Postby TheGreenGod » Wednesday March 17th, 2010 12:47 am MDT

Thanks for the reply. I have a few technical questions about what you said.

I am confused as to how actions made by a man, or by a corporation sole (CS) borrowing capacity from a man, are distinguishable from one another. If the CS is only capable of doing acts defined in contract, how is it possible for either the CS or the man to breach the contract? The CS is incapable of acting outside the contract and the man isn't even a party to it. I'm probably missing something here.

If a man in court mistakenly proclaims himself to be the CS, how does this create a general partnership if those require two parties? How is it possible for somebody's mistake to create a contract when a mistake is unintentional. Contracts have to be intentional, right?

It is widely recognized that very few people are educated on the law. Public schools barely touch on the subject in their curriculum. How does the "knew or should have known" presumption still stand? Is it possible to challenge? This seems like a violation of common sense. I mean, is there a single man on earth who reads everything entered into the public record? Is it even possible?

How does a CORP Court become vested with any authority to adjudicate the law and assume jurisdiction? Would that not be like Wal-Mart assuming jurisdiction over a case?


User avatar
Dan Mcdonough
Posts: 18
Joined: Wednesday January 28th, 2009 10:27 am MST

Re: Authority to Jail

Postby Dan Mcdonough » Wednesday March 17th, 2010 8:44 am MDT

Welcome to the journey,
Admin would probably say something like "Our Charter forbids us from providing Team Law beneficiary style support to anyone that is not a Team Law beneficiary unless that person is new to Team Law and needs a bit of help learning something about the law that will help them learn Team Law is worthy of their support. Thus, once anyone becomes aware that Team Law is worthy of their support, we are respectively limited from providing them with that support until they are Team Law beneficiaries." You already stated…
TheGreenGod wrote:I have learned enough to convince me that Team Law is worth supporting, so if you are unable to answer my questions here I will ask again once I become a beneficiary.

So it seems you are already aware Team Law is worthy of your support. Here is a link to the beneficiary forum that you can follow once you become a beneficiary. Re: Trouble understanding transfer of land and property The answer to your original question was given by SimplyThinkDreams, and it has to do with forming a general partnership, to understand it further follow the link provided.

If you need help being nominated as a beneficiary I would suggest The Way of Kings­™.

I hope this helps you.
Tell everyone about Team Law!
Dan McDonough

P.S. On a side note it seems your user name could be construed as synonymous with Mammon. Perhaps a reading of The Seduction will help you decide to change your user name. (not required of course, just a suggestion)

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Authority to Jail

Postby Admin » Thursday March 18th, 2010 5:01 pm MDT

:h: TheGreenGod:
Though we recognize the wisdom in Dan’s suggestion that you might want to consider a username change, we imagine others might suggest the same thing for a different reason; that being the reasonable desire to avoid placing oneself in a capacity of being in competition with deity. Accordingly, should you desire to make such a username change, send your request to Admin via a private message.

In fact, Dan was also correct when he informed you that because you already acknowledged that you recognize Team Law as worthy of your support, we are limited from providing you any further information regarding any topic other than helping you learn how you can get involved with Team Law. Dan also provided a proper response to the dilemma we face when that happens. However, for the benefit of other readers that already read the beneficiary responses posted in response to your initial inquiry, we can clarify their responses a bit and refer you to the sources wherein we already published answers to your inquiry, we can provide the following:

As per the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article, you were correct in your assumption that a man lending consciousness and physical capacity to a corporation sole is not Corporation Sole itself. Further, the corporation sole does not have the capacity to act outside of the contractual construct under which it was created. In fact, that is the very reason for the maxim of law that provides, ‘When a Trustee acts, it is the Trust that is acting.’ In other words, when a Trustee acts those actions are the actions of the Trust and not of the man that lends consciousness and physical capacity to that Trust’s Trustee.’

Thus, SimplyThinkDreams’ response regarding the voluntary general partnership relationship was correct. By responding (in first person) to the case as the Defendant, the Defendant acknowledges proper service of the summons and complaint that started the case and so secures personal jurisdiction of the court on the Defendant. Thus, that actual nature of the proposed defendant is irrelevant—personal jurisdiction is established; which is exactly why they correctly warn you: “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

Once personal jurisdiction is established, if a conviction comes the sentence will apply to the party standing under that jurisdiction regardless of their actual status in nature or in contract.

Though we contest the allegation that the courts are private corporations; nothing in their formation or operation supports that errant theory; however, court actions do create contractual obligations between the participating parties; which is about all we can say about that topic without trespassing on our obligations to Team Law beneficiary support. In other words, if you want to learn how to confirm that information and learn more from us, you will have to be a Team Law beneficiary.

We can remind you that the contractual relationship you are inquiring after between Corp. U.S. and corporate state agencies is most easily discovered by following the Standard for Review. Keep in mind The Seduction and then review Myth 22. The rest should fall in order. If it does not we will only be able to help you learn the rest after you are a Team Law beneficiary.

We can also tell you that law provides no avenue for “mistaken participation” either in a contractual relationship or in pleading your (or its) case. In accord with contract law, you knew or should have known. Ignorance is never an excuse—you knew or should have known.

Beyond that, we are limited from providing you further support until you are a Team Law beneficiary.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.

As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests